Annexes to COM(2018)364 - 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)364 - 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2018)364  |
| date | May 28, 2018 |
task for the judge unless it’s inappropriate.
Figure 36: Number of consumer complaints to ODR platform per 1 00 000 inhabitants, 2016 and 2017 (*) (source: ODR platform — extr acted 05/01/2018)
(*) The figure shows the number of complaints submitted to the ODR platform, not the number of disputes received by ADR entities via the ODR platform. A number of cases submitted to the ODR platform are subsequently solved bilaterally between the parties outside the platform, without any further involvement of an ADR entity.
3.2.2. Resources
Adequate resources and well-qualified staff are necessary for the good functioning of the justice system. Without a sufficient number of staff with the required qualifications, skills and access to continuous training, the quality of proceedings and decisions are at stake.
– Financial resources –
The figures below show the budget actually spent on courts, first by inhabitant (Figure 37) and second as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 38) (80).
Figure 37: General government total expenditure on law courts (*) (in EUR per inhabitant) (source: Eurostat)
LU DE UK SE IE AT NL BE SI IT Fl ES DK FR MT PT PL EL LV CZ HR EE HU BG SK LT RO CY
2010 2014 2015 «2016
(*) 2016 data for ES, FR, NL, and SK are provisional.
80
General government total (actual) expenditure on administration, operation or support of administrative, civil and criminal law courts and the judicial system, including enforcement of fines and legal settlements imposed by the courts and operation of parole probation systems, and legal aid — legal representation and advice on behalf of government or on behalf of others provided by government in cash or in services; excluding prison administrations (National Accounts Data, Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), group
Figure 38: General
GDP) (source: Eurostat)
government total expenditure on law courts
(*) (as
a percentage of
(*) 2016 data for ES, FR, NL, and SK
are provisional.
Figure 39 shows which state power (judiciary, legislature or executive) sets the criteria on determining financial resources for the judiciary, and the type of criteria used.
Figure 39: Criteria for
determining financial resources for the judiciary
(*) (81)
■ ■ ■
JL
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK Fl SE UK UK UK
(EN (NI) (SC)
■ Judiciary sets criteria Executive sets criteria Parliament sets criteria
y WL)
■ Other body sets criteria Amount based on historic/realised costs ■ No. of incoming cases taken into account
No. of resolved cases taken into account ■ Anticipated costs of projects, investments ■ Courts' needs/requests
( *) DK: number of incoming and resolved cases at courts of 1st instance courts are taken into account. DE: only for the Supreme Federal Court’s budget — as regards courts of 1st and 2nd instance. Judical systems vary between the federal states. EE: number of incoming and resolved cases for courts of 1st and 2nd instance courts. FR: number of incoming and resolved cases for courts of all instances. IT: the Ministry of Justice defines criteria for civil and criminal courts, while the Council for the Judiciary (CPGA) defines criteria for administrative courts. HU: law states that the salaries of judges must be determined in the act on the central budget in such a way that the amount must not be lower than it had been in the previous year. NL: the number of resolved cases based on an evaluation of the costs for courts is taken into account.
Data collected through an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ. Responses from Member States without Councils for the Judiciary were obtained through cooperation
81
– Human resources –
Adequate human resources are essential for the quality of a justice system. Diversity among judges, including gender balance, adds complementary knowledge, skills and experience and reflects the reality of society.
Figure 40: Number of judges (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)
(*) This category consists of judges working full-time, under the CEPEJ methodology. It does not include the Rechtspfleger/court clerks that exist in some Member States. EL: the total number of professional judges includes different categories over the years shown above, which partly explains their variation. UK: weighted average of the three jurisdictions. Data for 2010 contains 2012 data for UK (NI). LU: numbers have been revised following an improved methodology.
Figure 41: Proportion of female professional judges at 1st and 2nd instance courts in 2016
(source: CEPEJ study)
(*) UK
LV SI RO EL* LU HU HR SK FR SE EE CZ Fl PL IT BE NL AT LT DK PT ES UK* IE MT CY BG DE
1st instance courts «2nd instance courts
and EL: data for 2014.
Figure 42: Proportion of female professional judges at Supreme Courts in 2017 (*)
(source: European Commission (82))
(*) The Member States are in
the same order as in
Figure 41.
Figure 43: Number of
lawyers
(*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)
(*) Under CEPEJ methodology a lawyer is a person qualified and authorised according to national law to plead and act on behalf of his or her clients, to engage in the practice of law, to appear before the courts or advise and represent his or her clients in legal matters (Recommendation Rec (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer).
– Training –
Judicial training is important in contributing to the quality of judicial decisions and the justice service delivered to citizens. The data set out below cover judicial training in a broad range of areas, including communication with parties and the press and on judicial skills. Most Member States continue with the same type of compulsory training for judges as last year with the exception of ES, CY, HU and PT which have extended the scope of the training and EL that has reduced it.
82
2017
European
Institute
Gender Equality, Gender Statistics Database:
data.
for
Figure 44: Judges participating in continuous training activities in EU law or in the law of another Member State (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges) (source: European Commission (83))
(*) Values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (SI=243%). In a few Member States the ratio of participants exceeds 100 %, meaning that some participants attended more than one training activity. DK: including court staff. AT: including prosecutors. SE data are for 2015.
Figure 45: Share of continuous training of judges on various types of skills (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges receiving these types of training) (source: European Commission (84))
II II
BE BG CZ DK* DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU NL AT* PL PT RO 51 SK Fl 5E* UK MT UK UK
Judgecraft ■ IT skills Court mangement Judicial ethics WLj
(*) The table shows the distribution of judges participating in continuous training activities (i.e. those taking place after the initial training period to become a judge) in each of the four identified areas as a percentage of the total number of judges trained in these types of training. Legal training activities are not taken into account. Judicial training authorities in MT, UK (NI) and UK (EN+WL) did not provide specific training activities on the selected skills. SE data are for 2015.Training on judgecraft also covers judicial ethics. AT: including prosecutors. DK: including court staff.
83 84
2016 data collected in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network and CEPEJ.
2016 data collected in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network and CEPEJ. ‘Judgecraft’
Figure 46: Availability of training for judges on communication with parties and the press (*) (source: European Commission (85))
16
Mil
iiiiii iiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
in
PT AT SE IE HU BG LV SK BE ES DK LU RO
EE LT EL NL
CZ FR HR CY MT PL UK
On the role of interpreters
■ Communication with media and general public Gender-sensitive practices in judicial proceedings Non-discriminatory treatment of court users Communication with visually/hearing impaired Communication with children
■ Communication with persons of different cultural, religious, ethnic or linguistic background
■ Communication with the parties
(*) DK: no training is offered on communicating with people who are visually or hearing because the state offers a visually or hearing impaired people support in form of tools or an in the courtroom, e.g. a deaf interpreter.
impaired assistant
3.2.3. Assessment tools
Monitoring and evaluation of court activities help to detect shortcomings and needs, and therefore help the justice system increase its quality. Regular evaluation could improve the justice system’s responsiveness to current and future challenges. Adequate ICT tools could provide real-time case management systems and could help to provide nationwide standardised court statistics. In addition, they could be used for the management of backlogs and automated early-warning systems. Surveys are essential to assess how justice systems operate from the perspective of legal professionals and court users. An adequate follow-up of surveys is a prerequisite to improve the quality of justice systems.
Figure 47: Availability
CEPEJ study (86))
of monitoring and evaluation of court activities
(*) (source:
111 ■ 111111 ■ ■■ 111 11111111111111 11111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111
111
PT SI SK DK FR LV LT HU MT AT PL RO EE EL ES HR IT CY NL Fl CZ SE BG DE LU BE IE UK
■ Annual activity report ■ Number of postponed cases
Performance and quality indicators ■ Regular evaluation system
Age of cases Specialised court staff for quality
Other elements
( *) The evaluation system refers to the performance of court systems, using indicators and targets. In 2016, all Member States reported having a system that allows them to monitor the number of incoming cases and delivered decisions, as well as the length of proceedings making these categories superfluous for the above figure. Similarly, the more in-depth work on quality standards has superseded their use as an evaluation category. Data on ‘other elements’ include e.g. clearance rate (AT, FR), number of appealed cases and enforcement procedures (ES), outcome of the case, e.g. full or partial satisfaction (SK), final convictions (RO) and number of court sessions (PL).
Figure 48: Availability of ICT for case
(0 = available in 0 % of courts, 4 = available
statistics
management and court activity
in 100 % of courts (87)) (source: CEPEJ study)
86 87
2016 data.
2016 data. Equipment rate from 100 % (device completely deployed) to 0 % (device non-existing) indicates the functional presence in courts of the device covered by the graph, according to the following scale: 100 % = 4 points if applicable to all matters / 1.33 points per specific matter; 50-99 % = 3 points if applicable to all matters / 1 point per specific matter; 10-49 % = 2 points if applicable to all matters / 0.66 point per specific matter; 1-9 % = 1 point if applicable to all matters / 0.33 points per specific matter. Matter relates to the type
Figure 49: Topics of surveys conducted
(source: European Commission (88))
among court users or legal professionals
(*)
I Accessibility Df the court service The conduct of the hearing Needs and satisfaction of non-native speakers Needs and satisfaction of visually/hearing impaired General level of trust in the justice system
( *) Member States were given one point per survey topic indicated regardless of whether the survey was
conducted at national, regional or court level. ‘Other topics’ include: adequacy of premises as regards victims’
rights and disabled persons (MT). Availability of c instructions on legal remedies (DE). This category organisation (IE), human resources
information online (DK). The right to be heard, covers surveys among court staff, e.g. on court workload (MT). Property profile of the
(IE, MT), integrity of judges (HU), judiciary (AT), career structure and training options (DE). The topic ‘awareness of rights’ was not included in surveys in any Member State in the respective period. BE carried out a survey in 2014.
Figure 50: Follow-up of surveys conducted among court users or legal
(source: European Commission (89))
professionals
(*)
(*) Member States were given one point per type of follow-up. The category ‘other specific follow-up’ included: feeding into the courts service’s online services strategy (IE), informing deliberations of the Probate Services Review Group (IE), evaluating the use of an online portal concerning tax and administrative courts (PT), editing existing website (DK).
88
2017
data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
also
3.2.4. Standards
Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. Following the examination of standards on timing and information to parties in the previous edition, the 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard focuses on timeframes and backlogs as a management tool in the judiciary (90). Figure 51 presents an overview of which Member States use the standards on time limits, timeframes and backlogs. Time limits are quantitative deadlines, e.g. maximum number of days between the registration of a case until the first hearing. Timeframes are measurable targets/practices e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be completed within a certain time period. Standards on backlogs covered in Figure 51 mean whether a definition exists on when a pending case is considered to be a backlog. Figure 52 presents which bodies set, monitor and follow-up on timeframe standards and Figure 53 shows in more detail certain aspects on setting, monitoring and follow-up of backlogs.
Figure 51: Standards on timing (*) (source: European Commission (91))
BG DE EE IT LT HU NL SI Fl SE DK ES CY LV PT RO SK BE CZ IE EL FR HR MT LU AT PL UK
Time Limits Timeframes Backlogs
( *) Member States were given 1 point if standards are defined, regardless of the area (civil/commercial, administrative, or other).
Figure 52 focuses on timeframes, which can be an effective m anage m ent tool in the judiciary, since they can help to detect potential issues on efficiency and assist in identifying solutions (e.g. additional human or financial resources, reorganisation of court management process, temporary assistance to a court). The figure shows the com petences of the diff erent powers of the state to set, monitor and follow-up standards on timeframes.
90
In the EU Justice Scoreboard, the standards on time limits and timeframes go beyond the requirements stemming from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Figure 52: Setting and monitoring of standards on timeframes (*) (source: European Commission (92))
(*) Member States are presented according to the order in Figure 52. Setting standards ‘by the parliament’ indicates that a certain standard is set only in law. The ‘executive’ encompasses institutions under direct or indirect control by the government. ‘Other’ refers to the National Office for the Judiciary in HU, headed by its
president elected by qualified majority of the
Parliament
from among judges for a period of nine years.
The
‘judiciary’ includes bodies such as court presidents, Councils for the Judiciary, judges’ bodies. BE: Based on
legislation of
2014,
standards on timeframes are expected to become effective in
2019. FR: The Council of State
(Conseil d’Etat) monitors the respect of standards on timeframes concerning administrative cases. HU: The National Office for the Judiciary is involved in setting, monitoring and follow-up of standards on timeframes.
Figure 53: Backlogs: definition, automatic monitoring and follow-up (*) (source: European Commission (93))
*Several Member States indicated they did not have an automatic system for following backlogs, including instructions which can be introduced manually (DK, MT, ES). DE indicated that different systems exist at federal state level, such as the indicator-based information system KISS in Bavaria, including traffic light indications and early warnings. LT: the courts information system LITEKO is planned to gradually introduce such an automatic system in 2018. BE: the standards on backlogs do not include a definition, automatic monitoring or follow-up.
92
2017
data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
– Information to parties –
Figure 54 presents standards on the way parties are informed and the type of information they receive about the progress of their case. Certain Member States have an automated e-mail or SMS notification system providing information about delays, timetables or general case progress. Others simply give online access to the information during the case, while some leave it at the discretion of the courts.
Figure 54: Standards
Commission (94))
information about case progress
(*) (source: European
( ) Member States were awarded points depending on the method used to provide each type of information. 1.5 points for automatic notification by e-mail or SMS, 1 point for online access during the case, 0.5 points for each information upon request by parties, court discretion or any other method used. LU: data for 2016. MT:
Continuous access to documentation relative to civil cases is available via ‘myCases’ system. SI: Court
president can order priority handling of a case or order to perform procedural acts to prevent delays in case of a justified application of the party and inform the party. The new Court Rules provide the ob ligation for courts to enable an on-line view of data recorded in case register systems.It is still to be implemented.
3.2.5. Summary on the quality of justice systems
Easy access, adequate resources, effective assessment tools and appropriate standards are the factors that contribute to a high quality of justice systems. High quality decisions are what citizens and business are expecting from an effective justice system. The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard develops its comparative examination of these factors.
Accessibility
This edition looks at elements contributing to a citizen-friendly j ustice syste m :
• Almost all Member States provide some online information about their judicial system, including a centralised web portal with online forms and education on legal rights (Figure 25). Differences appear on the content of the information and how adequate these are with
people’s needs. For example, only eight Member States provide an interactive online tool
enabling people to find out whether they are eligible for legal aid. While information for non-native speakers is available in the majority of Member States, less than half provide information targeted specifically to children and for visually or hearing impaired people.
• The availability of legal aid and the level of court fees have a major impact on access to justice, in particular for people in poverty. Figure 26 shows that in some Member States,
on
consumers whose income is below the Eurostat poverty threshold would not receive legal aid. Over the years, legal aid has become less accessible in some Member States as the income threshold for legal aid remained unchanged while the poverty level has gone up. The level of court fees (Figure 27) remained largely stable since 2016. However, the difficulty in benefiting from legal aid in combination with partly significant levels of court fees in some Member States could have a dissuasive effect for people in poverty to access justice.
• The availability of electronic means during the judicial procedure contributes to easier access to justice and the reduction of delays and costs. Fig ure 28 shows that in more than half of Member States electron ic submission of claims is not in place or is possible only to a limited extent and that not all Member States allow following the progress of court proceed ings online.
However, on the quality of online small claims procedures a considerable set of tools is available in the majority of Member States (Figure 29). A survey on the actual use of ICT between courts and lawyers shows that ICT tools are widely used in 12 out of the 22 Member States covered by the survey (Figure 30). They are most frequently used for general communication with courts, while signatures of documents and submissions of claims, summons and evidence are ess frequently done by electronic means. In comparison
to last year’s survey, a higher number of lawyers reported that the use of ICT is
compulsory in their country. Overall, the reported level of positive experience has decreased while the reported lack of trust increased.
• Compared to previous years, online access to court judgments has improved in a number of Member States (Figure 33). There is, however, scope for improvement, since only 16 Member States publish all civil/commercial and adm ini strati ve judgm e nts of the highest instance, while these decisions play an important role for the consistency of case-law. As various arrangements for online publication (Figure 34) could facilitate searches for relevant case-law, tagging judgments with keywords and greater use of the European Case-Law Identifier (ECLI) could be further developed.
• Most Member States continued to promote the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR) (Figure 35) methods for private disputes compared to previous years. This is mainly achieved by introducing more incentives for the use of ADR across different areas of law. In consumer law, a clear increase in the use of the recently established online dispute resolution (ODR) platform is visible in all Member States (Figure 36).
• A new indicator (Figure 32) shows that courts at all instances use social media to communicate about their work in one third of Member States, while in other Member States social media are used only in some court i n stances or not at all.
Resources
High quality justice systems in Member States require adequate levels of financial and human resources, appropriate initial and continuous training as well as diversity among judges, including gender balance. The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard shows the following:
• In terms of financial resources, data show that, overall, general government expenditure on the judicial system remained stable in most Member States in 2016 while significant differences in allocated amounts persist (Figures 37 and 38). Only one Member State facing particular challenges decreased expenditure, whereas a number of Member States increased their budget. Member States mostly use historical or actual cost for determining
financial resources for the judiciary in stead of relying more on the actual workload or court requests (Figure 39).
• The level of gender balance among judges in first and/or second instance courts overall continues to be adequate (Figure 41). The proportion of women is generally much lower in Supreme Courts compared to lower court instances (Figure 42), but it has increased in about a third of Member States compared to previous years.
• On the training of judges, while most Member States provide continuous training in EU law, the law of another Member State and on judgecraft fewer offer training on IT skills, court management and judicial ethics (Figures 45 and 46) . Training on communicating with parties is offered in most Member States (Figure 46). Efforts need to be intensified, however, to train judges in communicating with specific groups of parties (including visually or hearing impaired people) in dealing with gender-sensitive practices in judicial proceedings, and on the role of interpreters.
Assessment tools
• Monitoring and evaluation of court activities (Figure 48) exists in all Member States. It generally includes different performance and quality indicators and regular reporting. Almost all Member States monitor the number and length of court cases and have regular evaluation systems. Compared to previous years, several Member States have extended monitoring to more specific elements and some involved more specialised court staff for qual ity.
• The full potential of ICT case management systems still needs to be reached in many Member States (Figure 48). Such a system should serve various purposes, including generating statistics, and be implemented consistently across the whole justice system. For example, in some Member States, ICT tools do not deal with the management of backlogs, including the identification of particularly old cases. By contrast, certain Member States have early-warning systems to detect malfunctions or non-compliance with case processing standards, which enables the finding of timely solutions. In some Member States, it is stil l not possible to ensure nationwide data collection across all justice areas.
• The use of surveys among court users and legal professionals (Figure 49) has increased, with more than half of Member States conducting surveys and expanding the range of topics in 2016. Accessibility, customer service, court hearing and judgment, as well as general trust in the justice system remained key survey topics. A few Member States also inquired about the satisfaction of groups with special needs, notably visually impaired, children and non-native speakers. Almost all Member States who used surveys also ensured follow-up (Figure 50), while the extent of the follow up continued to vary greatly. Results generally were made puplic and fed into reports, while in half of the Member States the survey results led to changes in the functioning of courts.
Standards
Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. This edition continues to examine in more detail certain standards aiming to improve the timing of proceedings and the information provided to the parties.
• Most Member States use standards on timing. However, certain Member States facing particular challenges on efficiency are currently not using such standards. Standards fixing time limits (e.g. fixed time from the registration of a case until the first hearing) are most widespread, while those on timeframes (e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be
completed within a certain time) and backlogs are used less (Figure 51).
This edition examines how far the judiciary is responsible or fully involved in establishing and monitoring standards to avoid undue interference by the executive. It shows that timeframes (Figure 52) are mostly set soley by the judiciary or in cooperation with the executive. The monitoring of timeframes is mainly under the responsibility of the judiciary. The non-compliance with timeframes can trigger various types of follow-up, either by the judiciary or, quite often by the judiciary and the executive.
Standards on backlogs (Figure 53) are a useful tool that can contribute to better case management and improved efficiency. Most Member States have standards on backlogs, but their scope varies considerably. While most Member States have procedures to address backlogs through a range of measures, only half of the Member States have a substantive definition on when a pending case is considered a backlog. About a third of Member States have systems for tracking backlogs, which automatically sends alerts on pending cases of a certain age or once backlogs reach a certain percentage of all cases.
Most Member States have standards on how to inform the parties about the progress of their case, the court timetable or potential delays (Figure 54). Compared to last year, a few Member States improved these standards. The differences between Member States relate mainly to the methods used. Certain Member States have a system with automated e-Mail or SMS notification providing information about delays, timetables or general case progress. Others simply give online access to the information during the case, while some also leave it at the discretion of the courts. From the point of view of people accessing justice, automated information from the court is preferable to one that requires action from the parties.